communicated to our race, would be handed down through successive generations, extending its influence to the remotest periods and regions.

We come now to exhibit what has been considered as something like a positive argument in support of the opinion which denies the possibility of arriving at a knowledge of the divine existence, independently of revelation. The benevolent attention which of late years has been devoted to the instruction of the deaf and dumb, has led to some discoveries highly interesting to the philosophical observer of the human mind. Among other things, it has, we believe, been pretty clearly ascertained, that this unfortunate class of beings are entirely ignorant of a Deity, until they receive from their teacher particular and explicit information on this subject. And here we must not omit the mention of a circumstance which is well authenticated. It is the case of a man born deaf and dumb in France, who is reported to have been quick and sagacious in the ordinary affairs of life. He was a regular attendant of public worship, and applied for admission to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. The bishop to whom the application was made, examined him as far as practicable, through the medium of his relatives and familiar companions, who could best converse with him. He was received as a communicant, and continued for many years, as was supposed, a devout Christian. At length, a surgical operation was performed on his ears, which enabled him to hear, and, of course, he soon became able to speak and to read. He then declared, that, in his previous state, he had not the most indistinct apprehension of a God, and that all the interest which he formerly appeared to take in religious exer

cises, resulted solely from a desire to imitate what he saw in others. Now, there is undoubtedly a degree of force in the argument founded on the case of the deaf and dumb. Yet this argument must not be looked upon as conclusive, because the class of beings in question are in circumstances different from those in which the rest of the race are found. They have not, so to speak, the full complement of faculties pertaining to human nature. They, consequently, labour under disadvantages which render their situation so peculiar, that the inference drawn from their ignorance of a Deity, cannot be fairly relied on as decisive of the point at issue.

And after all, brethren, we confess that we are not competent to determine, whether man, independently of revelation, could have ascertained the being of God. That he has an instinctive perception of right and wrong that his conscience often alarms and influences him by vague feelings of accountability, we are willing to admit. But how far these moral emotions would necessarily involve a belief of the divine existence, we are at a loss to say. His Maker did not think proper to leave man without a revelation, and, therefore, we know not what it were possible for him, either immediately on his creation, or in a succession of ages, to discover of the being of a Deity.

If, however, we should admit, that the bare fact of the divine existence is discoverable by human reason, still we may venture to assert, that no correct ideas relative to the character and perfections of God, can be derived from any other source than his own word. In support of this position, it is sufficient to appeal to the state of religion among the most enlightened and refined nations of antiquity. Behold the learned

and polished Greeks and Romans offering their homage to thirty thousand divinities-divinities, too, whom they conceived to possess all the passions which belong to our nature in its state of degeneracy. See the inhabitants of Athens-a city accounted the metropolis of the literary world,-erecting altars to unknown gods!

And here it deserves to be particularly remarked, that the opinions entertained by the ancients in reference to the divine nature, appear to have become less rational, or, rather, less consistent with the discoveries of revelation, in proportion to their advancement in literature and philosophy. The question might hence arise -if the knowledge of God which they possessed, had been acquired by the exercise of their own mental faculties, why did it not improve and enlarge in the same ratio in which those faculties were cultivated and expanded? How are we to account for the fact, that the religious sentiments of the Greeks and Romans, never exhibited the least symptom of progression towards the truth? The only change which they underwent, was to grow more absurd and more monstrous. This circumstance, however we may attempt to explain it, is a curious one.

We know it has been alleged, that while the popular religion of the ancients was a system of unmeaning and debasing superstitions, their philosophers and intelligent men of the higher classes, entertained more enlightened views respecting the divine Being, and merely professed, from motives of policy, to coincide in the vulgar notions of their countrymen. There may be some ground for this assertion, though every one must discern, that it is unsafe to pronounce positively concerning opinions which those who are conjectured

to have held them, are admitted to have been most anxious to conceal. The truth of the matter we suppose to be about this-that reflecting men among the Greeks and Romans perceived the futility of the religious system adopted by the multitude, but having no certain information on the subject, and knowing not whither to go for such information, their minds settled into a state of general doubt and total indifference. According to the testimony of Gibbon, (their warmest admirer and eulogist,) they were, in reality, Atheists, though they thought proper, for obvious reasons, to conform externally to the religion of their country. It is Cicero, we believe, who somewhere remarks, that he never could tell, how one augur was able to look at another without laughing. And yet we are much mistaken, if his own speculations respecting the Deity, will not be contemplated with little complacency by a modern advocate for the sufficiency of human reason.

Enough, we presume, has now been said to show, that, apart from the revelation with which our Creator has kindly condescended to favour us, God is an incomprehensible being. Had it not been for the sacred scriptures, we should have remained ignorant of the divine character and perfections, even if we had been able to discover the simple fact of the divine existence.

But, brethren, we are prepared to advance farther than this, and to maintain, that, even with the light which the inspired record reflects on this sublime and glorious subject, we can learn little comparatively concerning Him who made us. Yes, we may go to the man who has the Bible in his hands, and as he diligently explores its pages, we may say to him in the language of the text, "Canst thou by searching find

out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know; The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."

Does any one here ask, why it is that the Deity, notwithstanding the disclosures of his word, is, in a great measure, incomprehensible to the human mind? We answer, because of the feebleness and imperfection of our capacities. A finite intellect can no more comprehend that which is infinite, than the hollow of our hand could contain the waters of the ocean. The poet has well said,

"Could we conceive him, God he could not be ;

Or he not God, or we could not be men.

A God alone can comprehend a God.”

Let us now endeavour to analyze the truth inculcated in our text, and to ascertain more definitely what it is that we mean, when we speak of the incomprehensibility of God.

And first we remark, that God is incomprehensible in respect to the mode of his subsistence. He is an uncreated substance. He lives by an immutable necessity inherent in his own nature. He has proceeded from none, and is sustained by none. He is wholly independent of any of the relations of space and time. We may add, that the manner of his being becomes still more mysterious, when we take into view what the scriptures reveal with regard to a plurality of some kind in the unity of the divine essence, It is utterly impossible for us to conceive how the same God can be both one and three. And yet this fact relative to the Most High is taught so distinctly in his word, that we